Restriction on the Preparation of Adoption Reports Regulations 2005 and Suitability of Adopters Regulations 2005

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these two sets of regulations so clearly. They are certainly welcome because they put in place several key pieces of the jigsaw for implementing the Adoption and Children Act 2002, a measure which, as he will know, attracted a high degree of cross-party approval in both Houses. I am aware that these regulations have been subject to wide consultation, and there is little in them which could be classed as controversial. However, I want to touch upon one or two issues on which the Minister's comments would be most welcome, either today or subsequently in writing, whichever is more convenient to him. What is immediately noticeable about both of these statutory instruments is how brief they are. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I discern that there are two main reasons for that. Partly it is because they have to be read in conjunction with two other sets of regulations; but partly, too, it is because their implementation will depend in practice upon the guidance to be issued by the DfES, to which he referred. I could have wished to see reference to that guidance in the text of the regulations. I say that particularly in the light of Regulation 4(2) of the suitability regulations, which covers an issue on which, as the Minister rightly observed, we spent quite considerable time when debating the 2002 Act; and that is the requirement for an adoption agency to have regard to the need for stability and permanence in the relationship of a couple seeking to adopt a child. The way in which a judgment is made on that issue will be of absolutely critical importance to the success or otherwise of the adoptive placement. Since the Act was passed, Parliament has also passed into law the Civil Partnerships Act. I am personally pleased about that, not only because of what that Act does in itself but also because, in the current context, it will provide a benchmark against which an adoption agency will be able to measure the strength of the assurances about mutual commitment given by a same-sex couple seeking to adopt. It is not the only possible benchmark of such commitment, but it is a very good one. My concern lies, if anywhere, with the case of the unmarried different-sex couple seeking to adopt. What are the benchmarks there? It is not appropriate to put the relevant criteria for such decision-making into regulations, but we ought to see something in guidance. That is why, while I may have been expecting too much, I had hoped that the regulations would refer directly to such guidance as a matter to which an agency would be obliged to pay due regard. If the Minister can reassure me on that issue in some way, it would be helpful. I hope that he can. One of the main arguments for extending the right to adopt to unmarried and same-sex couples was that this would enlarge the available pool of potential adopters. I am the first to concede the power of that argument and I do not want to take issue with it. However, we need to be able to monitor the extent to which the pool has, in practice, been enlarged. Will statistics be kept centrally on the various categories of adopter—married couples, unmarried couples, same sex couples, single men, single women and so on—so that we actually know whether the good intentions underlying this legislation are being realised? Perhaps I may say a few brief words about the Restriction on the Preparation of Adoption Reports Regulations. Regulation 3 sets out the description of a person who is empowered to draw up adoption reports. If it is a qualified social worker, the wording says that he or she must have at least three years' post-qualifying experience in childcare social work, including direct experience of adoption work. I am a little concerned that this might include someone who has actually had precious little experience of adoption and family placement work, because the regulations contain no qualification on what constitutes a sufficient amount of "direct experience". That said, the key point surely is that the social worker who prepares the report should be the social worker who actually knows the child, knows the prospective adopter and so on. So, in principle, I welcome the fact that the regulations allow for this person to be a trainee social worker, provided that he or she is supervised by a qualified and suitably experienced social worker. That formula seems to get the balance right. Perhaps I may touch on a couple of other issues tangential to these regulations. Some individuals closely involved in adoption work have said to me that the timetable seems to be slipping as regards the delivery of training for social workers. What is the situation here and how far forward is the department in commissioning appropriate training materials? Another issue exercising practitioners in the field is the promulgation of guidance on those policy areas which straddle both the family courts and the DfES. When care proceedings and applications for placement orders are heard together, there would seem to be an unassailable case for a co-ordinated approach by the DfES and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Are there any plans to produce joint guidance, and can the Minister say when he expects the relevant court rules to be published? Finally, I should like to touch upon the vexed issue of adoption support. It is self-evident that to deliver adoption support effectively there has to be proper co-operation between local authority children's services, health services and education. The Government have rightly placed emphasis on having adequate support for looked-after children and their carers across all services. Adopted children and their families need to be able to rely on comparable provision. During the passage of the Act, Ministers said that it was the intention to issue directions to health and education authorities requiring their co-operation in the planning and delivery of adoption support services. I now understand that it is not the intention to issue directions. What is the reason for that? If the reason is that a duty of co-operation is contained in the new Children Act, I question whether that general duty will adequately cover the specific and very special issue of adoption support. I am never one for special pleading, but if we believe, as I think we all do, that the needs of adopted children, and the support that society gives to adoptive parents in particular, have a special status in the whole arena of children's safeguarding and welfare, there has to be a question mark over whether the Children Act duty can really do adequate honour to that conviction. If the Government's position is that the Children Act duty will suffice, I hope the Minister can tell us that this will be made explicit to all parties involved. These are immensely important regulations and they are to be welcomed. Along with the Government, we look forward to seeing them put into practice at the end of the year.